legal-mcp-server
Server Details
Federal and state court records lookup for due-diligence and background checks.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly defined.
The tool name 'search_court_records' uses a clear verb_noun pattern. Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is trivially satisfied.
A single tool for a legal server is too few for the apparent scope of legal research and case tracking. It feels extremely thin and incomplete.
The server only offers a search function, with no additional operations such as retrieving detailed case filings, managing alerts, or accessing related legal documents. This is a significant gap for legal research.
Available Tools
1 toolsearch_court_recordsARead-onlyInspect
Search public court records database by individual name, case number, or state jurisdiction. Returns case details including parties involved, case type (civil/criminal), filing date, judgment, and docket number. Use for background checks, legal research, or case tracking. Limited to public records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Full name or partial name of person involved in case (e.g. 'John Smith', 'Jane Doe') | |
| state | No | U.S. state or jurisdiction for search (e.g. 'CA', 'NY', 'Texas') | |
| case_number | No | Case identifier/docket number if known (e.g. '2023-CV-001234') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds return-field details and the public-records limitation, but it does not explain open-world implications (e.g., absence of results does not equal no record). No contradiction with annotations, but the openWorldHint is left undisclosed in prose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by return details and use cases. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers return fields, use cases, and the public-records limitation. Yet with no output schema and an openWorldHint, it omits handling of empty results and whether parameters are combinable. Adequate but with noticeable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's search-by phrasing mirrors the parameters but does not clarify whether they can be combined or if at least one is expected (all are optional). Marginal added value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function: 'Search public court records database by individual name, case number, or state jurisdiction.' It enumerates return fields (parties, case type, filing date, judgment, docket number) and use cases, making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use for background checks, legal research, or case tracking' provides concrete application contexts, and 'Limited to public records' sets a boundary. However, no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references exist (no siblings), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceEmits civil, criminal, and fiscal certificates from Brazilian state courts (Tribunal de Justiça) using CPF or CNPJ and UF. Read-only MCP server accessible via HTTP, pay-per-use with prepaid credits.MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceEnables simplified consultation of Brazilian judicial cases for individuals or companies using CPF or CNPJ, read-only, hosted, and paid per query with prepaid credits.MIT

CourtAPI MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceSearch and retrieve US federal court cases, dockets, claims, and documents via PACER — directly from Claude and other MCP-compatible AI assistants.1041MIT- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceProvides read-only lookup of negative civil and criminal certificates from Tribunal TRF6 via an official source, with prepaid per-query pricing.MIT